on them now but in the interest of time maybe we will forgo it and leave it for another day. that sector, could you please announce the date of the next commission agenda meeting. >> the next agenda meeting is thursday, december 14, 2017. [laughter] >> that the commission meeting is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] and. >> and following the meeting fcc chair karen pie spoke to reporters about the issues they voted on during today's meeting.

>> chairman pai, the floor is yours. >> thank you, tina. alright, alright, alright. as someone once said. today was an exciting day for technology goal innovation at the fcc. as we took significant steps and unleash the next generation of wireless connectivity, broadband networks and broadcasting. to advance the next generation 5g wireless services we voted to make another 1700 megahertz of high-frequency spectrum available for terrestrial, flexible, wireless use. we also streamline the rules for wireless and structured deployment which will help in the way for 5g networks and services. to advance next-generation broadband we voted to expedite the transition from legacy copper networks to modern fiber networks. billions of dollars set to maintain the feeding copper networks of yesterday will be

freed up to build a high-speed network of tomorrow. will help bridge the digital divide. to advance the next generation broadcasting we authorized a new television standard in a voluntary market-driven basis and this will open the door to a substantially improved three come over there broadcast service and future competition in the video market place. much more than that. one last thing i can't help but note college possible season has started in kansas, which is number four, beach seven kentucky and this will improve my made now that that has tailed off. i will now open it up to questions you might have kyle, bloomberg. question about media ownership. it seems like a big part of the pitch at least on crossownership is the idea that it will allow synergies in stations goodbye of newspapers that are struggling

but it seems like the market has been moving in the opposite direction and a lot of divestitures have split offs between publishing and broadcasting assets so what will change? >> well, we are making a decision as i said at the outset to ensure that our media ownership matched the marketplace in which we find ourselves in that workplace is dramatically different than it was in 1975 when the crossownership restriction was put in place. in the order there's record of the grandfathered combination dating back to 1925 and those accommodations sing reduce significant local news and does not cross ocean and our hope going forward is that especially midsize markets these procompetitive combinations getting create more local news that will be of interest to readers going forward interviewers, as well. >> my question is once the merger is approved by the sec

how will competitors complaints, if i trust away from if they feel the need to do so. >> if there's an antitrust complaint those to be typically fielded by either the deferment of justice for the federal trade commission which share concurrent jurisdiction or antitrust matters but depending on which to entities previously had approved the merger i would anticipate that agency would take the lead. >> margaret, there have been reports about a final order coming on a net neutrality in restoring internet freedom. i wanted to see if you comment on those reports and if you still intend to finish this proceeding by the end of the year and also more specifically after reviewing the record if you think there is still a need for three [inaudible] rules. >> no announcements today on that front. so, sorry. [laughter] >> there's still a lot of

criticism at the fcc in you have taylor decisions to benefits and flair and there was a couple of requests on the hill for investigated and you turned over all the information that you think members of congress want and can you addressed generally this idea that he been specifically tailoring decisions to benefits there? >> elected officials can say it literally anything and some do. in this particular case my record is very clear. going back to my time as commissioner starting in 2012 and ever since i've had the very consistent view of media ownership and media policies and that view is very simple and starts the proposition that i outlined in the opening of my overstatement which was the proposition that the media ownership revelation 2017 and should match the market place of 2017. every single one of her decisions is simply based on that. what are the lot, what are the facts, apply the law to the

facts and make the appropriate judgment in the public interest. i completely reject any of the suggestions along the line that you suggested. >> there is some concern that all customers have to buy a new television set in five years. you agree with that? if so, could congress help take actions to buy the new sets of converter boxes. >> that concern is misplaced as i pointed out in my statement just. >> after five years will have to buy a new set. >> well, in five years that's a long time and will have to see how the standard develops. over talking about right now is whether you approve the technical center. we are so far away from the point that to suggest that perhaps hypothetically in five years might have to get a new device so let's not look at the technical standard, as i said, this is a standard that no one would ever apply to any other segment of the coming occasions, certainly not the technology companies that don't have to abide by this mother may i approach here in washington. >> two things. first i wanted to clarify the

copper to fiber items and the idea behind eliminating this notification is that services that run over these formally copper networks that are transitioning would still work just fine -- is that correct? obviously the competition to go into more detail but there are two different categories i guess you might say that are in play here. category one is if there is a change to your service in category two is if the carrier is discontinuing that service. if in that first category we are talking about notice under section two and then were talking about the section 240 process and that's basically the bifurcation there were talking about. >> thank you so much. my second thing was to point out that since you mentioned college possible go tar heels. >> i thought you were going to say blue devils.

[laughter] >> you criticized apple for not including an enabling chips in their radio chips and their phones and will you be urging verizon to do so given that there are reports that they purposely block radio chips from their manufacturers and the phones. >> therefore just came out and i honestly -- >> i'm asking for someone also this is not my thing. >> i haven't seen anything on that issue this week but generally speaking i thank you know my overall philosophy which is the fcc can't require these phones or these chips to be activated but my hope is -- >> you can't require a service provider -- >> @have to look at the limit of our legal authority as to a

service provider so if you don't mind setting the report over that you have i can take a look. >> back when the fcc voted to reinstate the discount there was some talk that you would look at it again but it would go hand in hand at looking at the national ownership and there may have been mentioned that would happen by the end of the year and is that still in the works. >> i can't make any announcements about what will be on the next or subsequent open meetings but i will say that we are continuing to abide by that approach which is that the two go hand-in-hand and the fcc needs to take a look at it holistically rather than piecemeal. >> but is it still a consideration. >> yes, that is correct. >> my editor is asking this question.

he -- >> they always pin it on the editors. [laughter] >> i don't want to identify him but. [laughter] he says we illuminated the eight seems to him a rather high number and did that include dhs stations in the community and basically there have to be eight stations independently owned until there would be an approval combination of two stations district. >> that was the previous role that you cannot own two stations in the market if there were not eight intimately owned tv stations. >> that's why included you a just and -- >> that is my understanding yes. >> eleven. ms. clyburn called it a budget control cap and i thank you called it budget mechanism in your proposal and i believe she

said it was $823 million and i don't know whether that was accurate and she said it would cut the funding by more than half and raises the question what the current level of funding is. >> you will see and i release the item for weeks go and you will see in the final product which comes out soon that there is no specific number that is included and we simply see comments on what that budget cap should be. again i would refer back to my previous comment that the other universal service fund programs do have a cap that promotes fiscal responsibility and ensures integrity and they are just as important in many ways so we hope going forward they can try to reach a consensus on this point, to. >> commissioner clyburn said that knowing this order now waste the effort of the diversity committee and she also was upset that there is no data collection and that these orders aren't based on on the data

collection she thanks they should be and can you explain why you are taking section now without collecting that kind of demographic data and i think you've talked about basic rules on data collection. >> two different points. first, i noticed i am amused because the previous majority generally completely rejected my entire idea for any given program some years ago and it's remarkable the complaints about the process now service with a different chairs and control. second all we are doing now we decided to do as you've seen since it is publicly released the original draft is to decide to establish an exhibitor program and we seek a comment on what the contours of that program should be. there is no reason i can think of why the advisory committee -- number one, why they would have to study the issue of provider commissions before we took the step to establish the intervener and that's when number two they

be precluded from working in tandem as the public is this input on what they think the beta program should be so too can the diversity committee. that's one of the things we asked them to do and we spoke to various members of the look, this is an issue important to me. you know where i stand on an eighth meter in particular and on broadcast diversity in generally and that's why we have a sub working and we want you to get to work. give us your ideas and as soon as you can and as early as you can. >> [inaudible] next when i heard her i thought she was going to the incubator program but i could be wrong about that. >> [inaudible] >> look, on the general ownership rules i think are reasonable, those who study this issue over the years will acknowledge that there is record

is clear here and well-established in the third circuit itself as mr. riley pointed out has a long-held firm for example the impropriety of the newspaper that cast general rules for years and our sibley doing is recommending the fact that the record is paul and the evidence that we base our decision on is valid and the time is to take action and not a time for further delay for the sake of delay. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you talk about your travels around the country and form the policymaking you do back in washington. how many conversations have you had said she became chairman, roughly speaking, with lifeline suscribers? >> gosh, several i can think of. i didn't ask when i met with them are your lifeline suscribers but we have that conversation in place of south dakota, flagstaff, on the

outskirts of reno, a great number of them, i would think ricotta those conversations and form the item that you voted on today? >> it underscores it. here's a good example. i recently met with a member of the tribe from new mexico who came to my office and said look, we need infrastructure. we are lucky if he can get to g in some parts of our reservation and a lot of our younger members in particular are simply left on the wrong side of the fight. we need deployment here and that's why i think it is notable as i pointed out in my statement that there is alaska to minnesota to washington state to oregon to new mexico, you name it, have voiced support for some of the proposals that we put on the table. proposals, i might add, facilities based harmon on rules and tribal lands that the previous sec adopted and teed up in 2015 and this is 2015 order that heat up the idea the recently ratified today.

the only thing here unfortunately that has changed is the identity of the person who is leading the commission, not so much the ability of the idea itself. >> can you tell us if you had any contact with the inspector general's office about sinclair? >> i have not. >> or any mediation of ownership rules. >> no. >> have a great day. >> now will transition to the bureau press conference. >> as usual, he will go in order of items on the agenda and see if there questions on the. the first item was the call and lynn do you have a question? okay, please come up.

>> the draft item that was released to previous go was just to report in order that the press release today mentioned that commissioner clyburn mentioned further notice that included some questions that she had about what kind of effect you are having and what service providers are doing and could you elaborate and is that the total extent of the [inaudible]? >> the further notice will have questions on two topics. one is on how we can ensure that our rules are effective and what information we should gather to gauge the effectiveness of the rules. the other part of the [inaudible] concerns how we can ensure that any erroneous blocking of calls can be easily

corrected. we've already encouraged carriers who choose to block to implement a simple process that makes it easier to make those kinds of corrections and we are also asking questions further notice about how that process could be more effective. >> anything further on this one mark allen. >> same editor. he wants to know how many communities have more than eight stations in again, we are counting -- >> allen, that would be a media issue. this is a consumer bureau so that will be later. >> lifeline, lifeline, do you cover lifeline? >> we will go through the agenda but not yet. this is the real vocal issues will get to that question later.

thanks. okay we will move to the other question on spectrum frontiers. yes, that would be three pur --k we're waiting to see what the question will be. >> i'm sorry. i'm sorry. >> note, that time. go ahead and ask a question. >> i met with my colleagues would like to know satellite operators have asked the institute to make changes to the item as it was on draft and specifically to exclude grandfather gigahertz band or stations from coming toward the population limit and to narrowly

define the transient operation unit and for numerical limits on or stations or at least the cap of three individual licensing stations for the [inaudible] and not applied to the 38 gigahertz band and my colleague would like to know whether those changes were made in the final version of the item and if only some, which ones? >> hello. >> do i need to run through them again? >> well, running through them again is maybe the best answer. there were some adjustments made to provide greater flexibility to satellite providers but some of the other cases you mentioned those did not change. >> and are willing to specify at this point which one? >> i think it would be better for it to come out in the item. yet. >> of a, thank you. >> anything else? okay. thank you.

the next item will be -- i'm sorry, wireless, don't go away. this will be the accelerating wire less broadband. any questions on that? okay. the next one is the wire line infrastructure for the competition bureau. any questions on that item? okay. the next one is the lifeline item and any questions on lifeline? okay. finally, not really, six is a media ownership item. okay. media bureau please. >> there were actually three video bureau items so you can proceed with any of those.

>> could you explain exactly what the final version does to embedded markets? it is not in the handout and i got a little mixed up the commissioners for saint. >> that was a change from the item that was released and as you heard in the meeting to republican offices asked that fully adopt [inaudible]. >> yes, there's a presumptive waiver. >> what about the -- commissioner clyburn mentioned a couple of changes to the item and one she talked about a change mentioning privacy late this morning. could you explain what that was? >> there was a footnote regarding privacy. >> it doesn't create a privacy rule, i just mentioned privacy or -- >> it is not substantive. >> of a.

she also mentioned an exception to the simulcast rules and to the simulcast substantial similar requirement. >> and you will see when the item comes out that again there was another and another exception is made getting access to programming rights that are necessary for implementing the simulcast requirement. >> so he can't get access to the rights for both of your streams you don't have to follow the simulcast requirement is that -- >> it provides the flexibility to the extent you can get from a access to programming rights to follow the streets. that is how it is based. >> okay. that's all i got. >> [inaudible] >> on the eight voices role does anyone know how many communities have more than eight independently owned stations?

you can shake your head nobody knows offhand? okay. that's okay. just to make sure i'm right on that so when we were counting eight under the old rule that included you hs and vhs statio stations. >> yes. >> anything further? thank you very much. commissioner o'reilly is here for a press conference and [inaudible] is as well. mr. o'reilly will come and commissioner car. thank you. >> i want to let you know i am cold and hungry. [laughter] any questions or anything we can

answer? we answered everything in our amazing statement. >> [inaudible] you mentioned a media ownership that there will likely be a sequel and [inaudible] what do you think has changed, not necessarily in the media landscape but specifically to address some of the concerns that the third circuit has raised in the past about diversity and localism mark ... >> it's quite expansive in its explanation for why the points the court may have previously had concerns about have been

addressed and are no longer applicable in this instance. so i think the that right -- that rightfully provides an opportunity and, hopefully, we'll see a different outcome. but, you know, as the court has had, there's a number of things that are percolating in the third circuit already. i don't even know how the logistics of how everything we put together decided per se yet. >> how'd you feel about commissioner clyburn's suggestion that, you know, this have been done as a whole new rulemaking and -- >> we have been looking at this issue since 1996 is when the original provision was put in, and nothing has changed pretty much since then. there's been very little modification since then. we were looking at this item, you know, 2010, 2014, quadrennial, that's what we're getting at now. the last one, i think, if you look at my last dissent didn't acknowledge what was happening in the marketplace, and now it's an opportunity to look at reconsideration. i think we've looked at all the data, i think the record is

incredibly extensive on this issue. of the problem with the last commission is they ignored the record for the political outcomes they wanted and, hopefully, we'll be able to get over the barriers. and then we're going to start into 2018 quadrennial next year. >> sarah cohen, ctfn. you mentioned in terms of the millimeter wave spectrum screens that already exist, that you wanted them, those caps removed and that you couldn't discuss it. can you explain that a little? you said it was verboten? >> i said i asked to raise the question whether we should as part of, you know, whether as an nprm we should ask the question whether it should be removed, and one of my colleagues did not appreciate it, and it didn't make it into the final cut. so that was, you know, not necessarily appropriate. we often in nprms allow questions to go even if we may disagree. i thought that was kind of necessary, in my opinion. >> will this topic come up again? >> i imagine it will come up

again. >> early next year? >> well, i -- the chairman sets the schedule, so i don't know what potential topics, but i certainly have interest in raising it, and i imagine it'll come back in some form or fashion. >> commissioner o'rielly, i'm wondering if the nprm that you teed up today on lifeline move forward is having a minimum contribution of some kind. you laid out a couple possible scenarios, having something of that sort in a final recorder a red line for you -- order for you? >> the only red line i've made so far is it has the a budget. the other components, i think, are incredible -- incredibly important. once people said, absolutely, not, we will not do that, well, gee, we could work it this way. because the argument has been there's no need to collect any cash, there's no ability to collect any type of contribution.

then they thought about it and some of the providers said, gee, we actually do top-offs, people buy more services, so there's an opportunity to collect at that point, or maybe we do it add the recertification point. some ideas have been put forward. i don't know if it's necessarily a red line, but it's something i've had out there, and someone would have to make a pretty compelling argument why it shouldn't move forward. >> i asked the chairman, and it was an interesting response from both of you. you've both done some travel recently, in the last year since chairman pai took over, how many, roughly, conversations have you had with lifeline subscribers? >> i can't say i can quantify the number. i do a ton of meetings, as you can imagine, but i've talked to a number of people, and that's why you saw -- i've met with three groups that represent lifeline subscribers this last week, and i understand the plight many folks have. and i'm not trying to, for instance, trying to extract dollars from folks that are destitute, don't have the capability or don't have any

prospect of doing that. and that's from my conversations i've had with people and with the groups over the years and certainly trying to figure out what could be done in this space. so it's listening to them and seeing, gee, you know, if one time i may have been suggesting we should get contributions from everyone, the unbanked argument and saying i don't have a bank account, i can't do this mechanism, i'm not going to have any dollars, i am homeless, i've had those conversations with people. but i don't have a list for you at the moment. >> [inaudible] >> i mean, i have an open door policy. i meet with a broad range of stakeholders when i get outside of the building from all walks of life, and i don't quantify a list of people or what categories they fall into, but we have met with a wide range of people in all sorts of contexts. >> you say you have met with lifeline subscribers? you've been in this job for a shorter time -- >> i'm not going to get -- >> [inaudible] >> i'm just not going to

quantify it. like i said, i've met with a broad range of stakeholders in a variety of different contexts in d.c., out of d.c., around the country, and i've had an open door with all those meetings. >> thank you. >> on ats-3., 0 a couple questions. one, do you agree with the democrats who say it's going to require all consumers to buy a new set or converter box in five years, and can you also address this ore question -- other question regarding at&t and verizon that you should not require viewers to pay for a service they're not receiving? >> what i have said and you saw in my statement is we have no idea which direction this is going. we're adopting the standard today. we don't know what broadcasters are going to take it up. we have no idea what the impact -- what we've all done today is say we're willing to accept this standard and adopt it into our rules. i personally don't necessarily want it in my rules, in the commission's rules and argue that we probably shouldn't have

it, but i was willing to go along with that process. i think it's way too early to analyze those questions. they are appropriate questions to have, but they're way too early to answer those, and the commission will still exist. we're not disbanding today, despite some people's interest in doing so. so we're going to be here to listen through those arguments. we didn't have the converter box, as i said in my statement, we didn't have the conversation of 2005 legislation that i was part of when we adopted the original piece in 1996, and my old bosses sent a letter on atsc-1.0 and the commission adopting that long before the converter box was in place. so there'll be time to consider all these components and different variations. i made the point regarding the carriage issue is something i want to keep my eye on. i'm not oblivious or unsympathetic to arguments made. i think we're way too early the know before the first -- we're still in, you know, cleveland, and they're going to set up one in phoenix to see different components of those. i think it's way too early to

lay down the law on certain pieces in that respect, in my opinion. >> do you agree with that? i mean -- >> sorry, could you ask it again? sorry. >> oh, sorry. just in term -- do you think this will ultimately require people to buy new televisions or converter boxes, and what have the requirement that you're going to require people to pay for a service they're not actually getting? >> yeah. we have a lot of experience with different transitions. i talked in my statement about the wireless side. we have 2g analog service, we allowed carriers to sunset those services. what do you to with consumers who only have 2g phones? we adopted a five-year transition period very similar to here. there's no decision that we've made that says if negative consequences are going to happen, we're doing nothing. what we said is we have this five-year sunset which mirrors other transitions that we've done that have been successful, and we continue to be here to address any issues that might come up. so i think, you know, it's getting ahead of ourselves to

say this means negative consequences coming down the pike. our experience with similar transitions shows that's not going to be the case. >> [inaudible] you're good? >> okay. i have a question on lifeline. so part of the proposal is to eliminate funding to wireless resellers. i think it's something like 70% of lifeline subscribers have their service through wireless resellers, and there's been discussion about will facilities-based providers actually come in and fill that gap. i'm curious to hear from both of you why you supported that proposal and what concerns you have, if any, about subscribers who may not have service if wireless resellers are are not a part of the program. >> have at it. >> well, i think as we put in the nprm, this is a proposal. people can give us feedback on it. you mentioned the 75% number -- >> i think i said 70%, but, yeah. >> some 70% number that it's

not, that number itself is not purely non-facilities-based providers, and we're going the develop a record on this and move forward. and other portions of the items we're seeking comment on ways that we can reform the program and target support to people that need it. we'll see how the record develops. >> i would agree with that. i applaud the chairman for putting forward a proposal to explore this exact issue. i think it's important, and we're going to get a lot of comment, and we'll get more data points and examine these things to the points you raise. >> thanks. >> anyone from those seats over to my left? all right. well, everyone have a lovely day. any more questions before i head out? [laughter] okay. thanks, everyone.

>> so i thought i shouldn't let just my colleagues do, that you needed to hear from the other side, that you needed to hear from someone female, that you needed to hear from someone who can still be an optimist despite some of the noise that we had here today. now that being said, all of you probably want lunch. so hopefully, we can ask some good questions, and we can do them with some efficiency and speed. >> i'll start. >> okay. >> let me formulate this in my head. so i think my question would be i noticed there were a lot of 3-2 vote this is meeting around -- i'm wondering do you see or have there been opportunities for compromise with the chairman's office on some of these proposals that he's talked about working in a bipartisan matter. do you see actions to back that up? >> i'm an impatient optimist. i will work to try to achieve compromise up til the very last

minute. we had discussions about edits and changes we could make into the late hours last night. there are some ways in which we supported things today, and there were others where we came out clearly against it. but i won't give up trying to make changes and trying to convince my colleagues to see things differently and work with me in the process. >> hi, commissioner. tara jeffrey with bloomberg bna. you had previously released a statement back with the centurylink merger order about the merger review standards and how they had changed in that order, the balancing test being removed. you've also talked a little bit about the sinclair item or just generally about media mergers. how do you see that precedent going forward for transactions

like sinclair, the balancing test changes? >> for several decades the fccs has had a balancing test it has used in its transactions. it's taken the merger harms and looked at the merger benefits. you can go back decades and see text that reflects that approach. but quietly and without warning in a very big transaction recently, the agency just changed its standard. now, as a matter of administrative law, i think we should have had a rulemaking on that. i think when an agency changes its standards by which they review something, i think that should be subject to notice and comment. and so i dissented on that transaction to make note of that change and how it was issued quietly and without warning. and what i think is most concerning is that it's an effort to grease the skids for the next big transaction coming our way which involves a larger broadcasting company.

>> thank you. >> let me follow up on that question. you said in a hearing that all our media policy decisions can be custom built for sinclair. do you have a sense now that you've been back on the commission for a few months what is motivating your republican colleagues, and is there any evidence -- what's the evidence, i guess, that they're attempting to grease the skids for sinclair? >> i can't tell you with any kind of clarity what's motivating my colleagues or what's in their heads. i can only tell you what i see from where i sit and that we have engaged in a series of media policy changes at this agency that are striking in the one thing that they have common. they are all custom built for a company called sinclair broadcasting. we have changed joint services agreement policy, we have changed the uhf discount, we have now changed our media ownership rules, and we have now

authorized a new television standard called atsc-3.0 for which this company owns some of the most essential patents. i can only offer you those data points and those facts and tell you that there is a common thread throughout all of those efforts and initiatives. >> kyle daley, bloomberg bna. do you share the concern or belief that chairman pai should recuse himself over any sinclair matters for these reasons? >> i appreciate that many members of congress have written to the agency requesting that he do so. >> but you don't, won't personally take a position? >> i think it's striking how many members of congress have written this commission asking that he do so. i don't remember in my history of working here that ever happening before. >> hi. sarah cohen, ctfn. commissioner clyburn mentioned

the court stepping into this matter. what does that look like? what was she talking about? >> i believe she was talking about the media ownership decision. >> yes, she was. >> and this agency has made several trips to the third circuit court of appeals on this subject, and it's my expectation that they'll probably review our handiwork here as well in the future. >> commissioner or, welcome back. -- commissioner, welcome back. do you think, do you think, just to follow up, that an i.g. investigation of chairman pai's relationship with sip claire broadcast -- sinclair broadcast would be a good idea? >> i appreciate that a lot of members of congress think it's something that should be done. >> you don't have a position on whether or not -- >> i think it's striking how members of congress have written us -- [laughter] and i would also point out that i believe that's unprecedented. >> thank you.

[laughter] >> all right. and that's that? thank you, and it's a treat to be back here. it's a privilege, and maybe we'll be agreeing to some things and making some noise and raucous on others. thank you for what you do. [laughter] the next time i'll bring coffee. [inaudible conversations] >> tonight on our companion network c-span, former vice president joe biden and ohio governor john kasich on

partisanship in the trump era. >> well, i was recently with one prime minister in europe. i went over to speak at a conference. and he wanted to see me. and so i thought it was a courtesy call, and i thought it was going to last ten minutes. it lasted two and a half hours. and and at one point this prime minister said, and did you see what he did? we're sitting on the same side of a conference table, sort of as close as you and i are. he stood up and he said he took the president of montenegro, shoved him aside, stuck his chest out, and all i could think of was il duce. not a joke. not a joke. that's what people are thinking. that's what people are thinking. violating the norms of personal conduct generates more anxiety and fear than any policy

prescription that this president has enunciated. >> but to some degree, the politics today is a manifestation of the politics that's been brewing for a long time. >> exactly. >> i mean, i remember the bork hearings. i remember you were on the committee. you saw how raucous and how they were. and then we went through an impeachment, and then we went through, you know, the republican revolution, and we saw jim wright be driven out and foley be driven out. and then we saw the republicans win the house for, you know, the first time in 40 years and democrats kind of said, no, you never won. i mean, we're just going to fight you. we're not -- it's really a pox on both houses. and you are right about that guy that yelled at the president, you lie, and here's the ironic thing. the next day he put out a fundraising letter and raised money off of it. so the system itself has been breaking down because of base

politics. >> you can watch this entire discussion from the biden institute at the university of delaware tonight on our companion network c-span at 8 p.m. eastern. after that an interview with bill and hillary clinton. that's at 9:30 p.m. eastern tonight on c-span. ♪ >> c-span's student cam video documentary competition is underway, and students across the country are busy at work and sharing their experience with us through twitter. ♪ ♪ >> it's not too late to enter. our deadline is january 18th, 2018. we're asking students to choose a provision of the u.s. constitution and create a video illustrating why it's important to you. our competition is open to all middle school and high school students grades 6-12. $100,000 in cash prizes will be

awarded. the grand prize, of $5,000, will go to the student or team with the best overall entry. for more information go to our web site, studentcam.org. ♪ ♪ >> up next on c-span2, a conversation on the proposed merger that would create the largest group of television stations in the country. two owners of tv stations across the country, sinclair broadcast group and tribune corporation, are trying to merge, and the federal communications commission is currently reviewing the proposal. >> good afternoon, everybody. welcome. i am so excited to see this crowd to talk about the sinclair/tribune merger and the future of media ownership. my name is gigi sohn, and i'm a distinguished fellow at the georgetown institute